Calais Jungle Being Demolished And Britain Votes In Or Out In June.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

How is calling them a bunch de-humanising them? They are a bunch of people, it is a common turn of phrase, in Scotland anyway, i.e. "there's a bunch of lassies over there" "There's a bunch of folk waiting to get into the club" etc etc and we always qualify what the bunch consists of, be it lassies, folk or in this case, accurately, migrants

And I don't think that only Tory voters are concerned with the massive influx of migrants, in fact it is usually the people at the other end of the scale who are most affected by incomers, not the rich elites

a reply to: destination now

In the setting of the House of Commons, the language used by Cameron was ill chosen in my opinion.

I wasn't offended by it as it was not directed at me, but it demonstrates exactly what he feels about a particular group of people, he is obviously hoping will just disappear.

All that money spent on an Eton and Oxbridge education, yet he chose those words. It demonstrates the disdain of the man in my opinion.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

As I've just said, the collective "Bunch" is not considered in any way to show disdain for the people you are referring to. As for using another term in place of "Bunch" I suppose he could have used the word "Group" or "Gathering" or something, but he would still be slated for it, no matter what he said, because often people who have an opposing political view, will jump on anything that could be construed as an insult etc, whether it is or not, simply because they want to score points and claim a moral high ground.

Would he have used those words if the migrants were Jews? I personally believe he wouldn't.

He did realise they were ill chosen words, almost as soon as he said them, his face went as red as I had ever seen it, maybe it was anger and not disdain?

It was all about the context of the words and the environment they were uttered, he's never used the term a bunch of bankers in the House previously, for example.

Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But one thing for sure, it is only going to get worse in Calais and the rest of Europe. It's chaos in Greece and spring has only just begun.

a reply to: Kester

I'm confused as to the intent of your reply and your interpretation of my post. My point is the whole thing is a complete mess. I'm not exactly sure what all this is leading to but thus far, it appears quite ominous...

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But one thing for sure, it is only going to get worse in Calais and the rest of Europe. It's chaos in Greece and spring has only just begun.

I certainly agree with that, and just letting everyone in is not an option, Greece was already in economic meltdown, and many other European countries don't have the resources either, and whilst those who are genuinely fleeing war will be happy to be safe in any country, those who are travelling to Europe and the UK for economic reasons, are ultimately going to be very disappointed

a reply to: destination now

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Most are asylum seekers

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: destination now

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Most are asylum seekers

Or so they claim...

until it comes down to the issue of why they would destroy their ID. And the UK and many other countries DO take genuine refugees, from recognised camps outwith war zones..no need to march across Europe. In Scotland right now, there are a number of such people...they were not let in from Calais..

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: uncommitted

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Thanks, it just seems to me that people are looking at something to be offended by and choosing something that ultimately is nothing.

And yet, you seem to be offended by the thought of me being offended.

I merely pointed out what Cameron and obviously what most Tory voters think of immigrants, they're just a bunch.

You are obviously happy to de-humanise them, that's your perogative, I just hope we never find ourselves in a similar position.

I'm not offended at the thought of you being offended - you, like me are an anonymous dot on an internet forum. I'm more irritated that you are formulating your opinion and treating it as fact, but that's ATS for you.

FYI, it's prerogative, you missed out an r.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: destination now

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Most are asylum seekers

They are still migrants, the word means to move from one country to settle in another. Asylum seekers are therefore migrants - sorry, it's not a bad word, it's not a condescending word, it has no negative connotations (unless you choose to decide otherwise in your own mind), it doesn't say anything about you apart from you are literally seeking to settle in another country.

a reply to: destination now

Or so they claim... until it comes down to the issue of why they would destroy their ID. And the UK and many other countries DO take genuine refugees, from recognised camps outwith war zones..no need to march across Europe. In Scotland right now, there are a number of such people...they were not let in from Calais..

Really you think the UK takes refugees.. The UK makes them by bombing the hell out of there counties and exporting wepons.

Scotland taking refugees... ? Its lip service..its PR.. Lebanon is the size of Cornwell and have taken 2 million refugees..

How many has bonny scotland taken..

a reply to: uncommitted

They are still migrants, the word means to move from one country to settle in another. Asylum seekers are therefore migrants - sorry, it's not a bad word

Yes there is a difference if you can see it or not. Its used to desensitise the plight of these people.. If the middle east had not been bombed for the last decade of so we would not be in this awful mess..

They are people and they would rather be at home..

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: uncommitted

They are still migrants, the word means to move from one country to settle in another. Asylum seekers are therefore migrants - sorry, it's not a bad word

Yes there is a difference if you can see it or not. Its used to desensitise the plight of these people.. If the middle east had not been bombed for the last decade of so we would not be in this awful mess..

They are people and they would rather be at home..

No, I fully appreciate the dire conditions many in these camps are fleeing from and have a lot of sympathy (although that's limited due to their refusal to be registered in France) - although to assume all are from Syria is exactly that, an assumption. Regardless, they are migrants going by the definition of the word. If to you that desensitises them then that's your decision - the word migrant means what I posted in my last post.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: uncommitted

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Thanks, it just seems to me that people are looking at something to be offended by and choosing something that ultimately is nothing.

And yet, you seem to be offended by the thought of me being offended.

I merely pointed out what Cameron and obviously what most Tory voters think of immigrants, they're just a bunch.

You are obviously happy to de-humanise them, that's your perogative, I just hope we never find ourselves in a similar position.

I'm not offended at the thought of you being offended - you, like me are an anonymous dot on an internet forum. I'm more irritated that you are formulating your opinion and treating it as fact, but that's ATS for you.

FYI, it's prerogative, you missed out an r.

Did you miss the point where I mentioned it was my opinion, after all most of what is written on here is merely an opinion. You may disagree with it, but as it is an opinion, it's not wrong.

Thanks for correcting my spelling, it's a minor thing in the big picture, but appreciated none the less.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: uncommitted

I agree, I never understood why people were so offended at Cameron's remark...since when has referring to a group of people as a "bunch" been offensive? And yes, they are migrants, and many are economic ones at that.

Thanks, it just seems to me that people are looking at something to be offended by and choosing something that ultimately is nothing.

And yet, you seem to be offended by the thought of me being offended.

I merely pointed out what Cameron and obviously what most Tory voters think of immigrants, they're just a bunch.

You are obviously happy to de-humanise them, that's your perogative, I just hope we never find ourselves in a similar position.

I'm not offended at the thought of you being offended - you, like me are an anonymous dot on an internet forum. I'm more irritated that you are formulating your opinion and treating it as fact, but that's ATS for you.

FYI, it's prerogative, you missed out an r.

Did you miss the point where I mentioned it was my opinion, after all most of what is written on here is merely an opinion. You may disagree with it, but as it is an opinion, it's not wrong.

Thanks for correcting my spelling, it's a minor thing in the big picture, but appreciated none the less.

Actually you used the phrase 'in my opinion' twice in your third post - does that mean what you stated in the first two is fact as far as you are concerned?

I'm not actually saying that to challenge, just a stating that a lot of people on ATS seem to have this belief that if they think something then it must be right - I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone else, but I try very hard not to share it.

As for the spelling, I wouldn't usually mention it and as by default I know my browser spell checks in American English so I end up correcting things that don't need correcting, but prerogative is a word I often get wrong and I'm sure we almost all mispronounce it, so was just pointing it out, not trying to be a smart arse (although I appreciate you weren't suggesting I was).

a reply to: uncommitted

I was being genuine about the spelling, I use an I-pad and it usually corrects my spelling, so I must have ignored it.

With regards to any of my comments on here, the majority of them are my opinion and Interpretation of what I have read or heard, obviously slanted by my personal beliefs and principles.

a reply to: purplemer

Quite a few and when you consider that there are many homeless people, exactly where do you propose to put them? The main reason that some families have ended up on Bute is because the area is so economically inactive, apart from tourism, that they actually had council houses available because more people leave the island than want to move to it (apart from the super rich and their mega yachts)

It's all very well saying..oh yes come to the UK, but when that means that many will never work and are often placed in the most deprived areas of high crime, high unemployment etc is it really desirable?

Ultimately, we are actually a very small (geographically) group of islands and we just cannot take in and support the massive numbers who want to come here. A line has to be drawn

ETA and we have never bombed Syria and that's what this current crisis is about Syrian refugees fleeing the war in their country, but as has been shown so many times, less than half of the people marching across Europe are Syrian, they are mainly North African (we've never bombed them) Pakistani (or them) and Afghans and Iraqi's (okay we did bomb them...well we didn't..our govt did)

a reply to: destination now

Ultimately, we are actually a very small (geographically) group of islands and we just cannot take in and support the massive numbers who want to come here. A line has to be draw

You for real. Lebanon is the size of Cornwell and they took in 2 million are you are crying that Scotland a very uninhabited regions of the UK cant support them..

a reply to: purplemer

There need to be houses for them though..they can't live in tents in our climate. And whilst we have an excess of space, it doesn't have any homes. Ultimately though, the majority of people don't want to leave their home country, particularly in the case of genuine asylum seekers rather than economic migrants and as such it is probably better that they live close to their home region in terms of climate, language, culture etc until the situation is resolved in their own country and they can return home.

I absolutely support giving aid to Jordan and Lebanon etc to help provide aid for those fleeing, but it is probably better for everyone that they remain in their own region rather than shipping them all around the world

a reply to: destination now


thank you for your reply..

I really dont get why an issue housing peeps. they are peeps and this is a real problem. If lebeanon can afford to build millions of homes then certainly a developed nation like the uk can too..

happy days to you